Looking for Parents for Robert Hartley born in Colne Parish 1803-1804

In my last Blog, I was looking at Mary Heap as a possible mother for Robert Hartley born in Colne Parish about 1803-1804. I realized that she was married too early to be a good candidate.

Here is the possible birth for my ancestor Robert Hartley:

This is the possible marriage of the couple above:

I see that I have added possiblilty to possibility, but I have not many choices here. The question is, why would James have married Mary Berry from the Parish of Kildwick?

Joyce and Kildwick

When I choose my father cousin Joyce’s maternal matches and search for ancestors from Kildwick, I get about 68 matches. This seems unusual to me. According to Wickipedia, Kildwick had a population of  194 in 2011. As a comparison, I will check to see how many matches Joyce has with ancestral connections to Trawden. Joyces has 65 matches on her maternal side. However, that includes a lot of closer relatives who know they have Robert Hartley in their ancestry from Trawden. Also Trawden had a 2011 population of 2,765 which is over 10 times that of Kildwick. Either this is a huge coincidence or I may have Kildwick ancestors. However, the actuala Parish of Kildwick was much larger. According to Wikipedia:

Ancient Kildwick Parish was unusually large for it included the townships of Kildwick, Bradley Both, Cononley, Cowling, Holden, Eastburn, Farnhill, Glusburn, Ikornshaw, Silsden, Steeton, Sutton and Stirton and Thorlby.

Here is a map, though it is quite busy:

Genuki further supplies this information:

In 1822, the following places were in
the Parish of Kildwick:


“BRUNTHWAITE, in the township of Silsden, and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 5 miles N. of Keighley, 8 from Skipton.”


“CARR HEAD, (the seat of Richard Bradley Wainman, Esq.) in the township of Cowling, and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 5 miles from Colne, (Lanc.) 6 from Skipton.”


“CONONLEY, in the township of Farnhill with Cononley, and parish of Kildwick, east-division of Staincliffe, liberty of Clifford’s-Fee; (Cononley Hall, the seat of John Swires, Esq.) 3 miles S. of Skipton, 6½ from Keighley, 10 from Colne, (Lanc.) Pop. included in Farnhill.”


“COWLING, in the parish of Kildwick, east-division of Staincliffe, liberty of Clifford’s-Fee; 5 miles NE. of Colne, (Lancs.) 6 from Skipton, 8 from Keighley. Pop. 1,870.”


“CRINGLES, a hamlet in the township of Silsden, and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 5 miles from Skipton and Keighley.”


“CROSSHILLS, in the township of Glusburn, and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 5 miles from Keighley and Skipton, 8 from Colne, (Lanc.)”


“EASTBURN, in the parish of Kildwick, east-division of Staincliffe, liberty of Clifford’s Fee; 4 miles NW. of Keighley, 5¾ from Skipton, 10 from Colne. Pop. included in Steeton.”


“EDEN, a hamlet in the township of Sutton in Craven, and parish of Kildwick, east-division of Staincliffe; 4 miles from Keighley.”


“FARNHILL, in the parish of Kildwick, east-division of Staincliffe, liberty of Clifford’s-Fee; 4 miles S. of Skipton, 5½ from Keighley. Pop. including Cononley, 1,350, which being united, form a township.”


“GLUSBURN, in the parish of Kildwick, east-division of Staincliffe, liberty of Clifford’s-Fee; 5 miles S. of Skipton, 5½ from Keighley, 8 from Colne, (Lanc.) Pop. 787.”


“HIGH BRADLEY, a hamlet in the townships of Bradleys both, and parish of Kildwick, and liberty of Cliffords-Fee; 3 miles from Skipton. Pop. included in lower Bradley.”


“ICKORNSHAW, (or Cornshaw) in the township of Cowling, and parish of Kildwick, east-division and liberty of Staincliffe; 4 miles from Colne, (Lanc.) 7 from Skipton, 5 from Keighley.”


“KILDWICK GRANGE, a hamlet in the township and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe, 5 miles from Keighley.”


“LOW BRADLEY, in the township of Upper and Lower Bradley, and parish of Kildwick, east-division of Staincliffe, liberty of Clifford’s-Fee; 3½ miles from Skipton, 6½ from Keighley, 12 from Colne, (Lanc.) Pop. including Upper Bradley, 506, which being united, form the township usually denominated Bradleys both.”


“MALSIS HALL, a single house in the township of Glusburn, and parish of Kildwick, 5½ miles S. of Skipton and 5 from Keighley.

This was formerly the seat of a family of the name of Copley, and according to Whitaker’s Craven, was considered as the Manor house of Sutton, “for, by inquisition taken 34 Henry VIII. it was found that Alvary Copley was seized of the Manor of Sutton, or Malseyes, held of William Vavasour, Esq. as of his Manor of Addingham.” It is now the residence of Mr. William Spencer.”


“SILSDEN, (and Silsden Moor) in the parish of Kildwick, east-division and liberty of Staincliffe; 4 miles from Keighley, 7 from Skipton, 12 from Colne, (Lanc.) Pop. 1,904. The Church is a perpetual curacy, dedicated to St. James, in the deanry of Craven, value, p.r. !£86. Patron, the Earl of Thanet.”


“SILSDEN MOOR, a hamlet in the township of Silsden, and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 4 miles from Skipton.”


“STEETON, in the parish of Kildwick, east-division and liberty of Staincliffe; (Steeton Hall, the seat of William Sugden, Esq.) 2 miles NW. of Keighley, 7 from Skipton, 11 from Colne, (Lanc.) Pop. including Eastburn, 753 which being united, form a township.”


“STONE GAPPE, a single house in the township of Glusburn, and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 4½ miles S. of Skipton.”


“STOTT HILL, a hamlet in the township of Cowling, and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 5 miles from Colne, (Lanc.)”


“SUTTON IN CRAVEN, in the parish of Kildwick, east-division of Staincliffe, liberty of Clifford’s-Fee; 5 miles NW. of Keighley and Skipton, 9 from Colne, (Lanc.) Pop. 1,092.”


“SWARTHA, (or Swarthey) a hamlet in the township of Silsden, and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 4½ miles N. of Keighley.”


“TOM’S CROSS, in the parish of Kildwick, and wapentake and liberty of Staincliffe; 4 miles NE. of Colne.”


“WOODSIDE, scattered houses in the township and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 4½ miles from Keighley, 4 miles S. of Skipton.”

I copy this information as it gives the distance from Colne for some of these places.

Here are the top five matches:

Jennifer and R.M. must be related as their trees are the same length. When I check shared matches, R.M. is Jennifer’s daughter. Here is Jennifer’s tree:

Jennifer shows as a second cousin to Jenny in shared matches. Here is Jenny’s tree:

This should narrow down where to look. Further, I See from Jennifer’s tree taht CHarles Bell and Sarah Jones are from Yorkshire. Here are more names along that line from Jennifer’s tree:

Further, the Bell and Caygill lines are the ones in Yorkshire.

Goodby Mary Heap; Hello Mary Berry

I will replace Mary Heap with Mary Berry in my Ancestry Tree, to see if anything shows up on DNA matches:

I gave her a birth date of 1775. That would put her at about 26 when she married James Hartley, widower. There was a Mary Berry born in Colne and baptized in March that year:

This appears to be the best gues for Mary’s birth.

Summary and Conclusions

  • When you don’t know who your ancestors are, you have to make many guesses to see which guesses are most likely
  • I assumed that the parents of my ancestor Robert Hartley were James and Mary of Bough Gap, Colne Parish Lancashire
  • I further assumed that the Mary who married James Hartley was a Mary Berry from Kildwick Parish, Yorkshire, not far from Colne
  • A check of my father’s cousin Joyce’s matches revealsed that many of them had ancestry from Kildwick.
  • The closest match had a very large tree but no Berry names from that area in her ancestry.
  • I have put Mary Berry into my tree, to see if there are many or any DNA matches that show up.
  • Although I am skeptical that Mary Berry is the right ancestor, I think I have a fairly good procedure to check on potential ancestors. That is, whether there are many DNA matches on the ThruLines.

 

 

 

 

More Hartley ThruLines

I need to modify my Hartley genealogical tree. My earliest verified ancestor was the widower Robert Hartley who married Mary Pilling, a single mother:

 

This marriage was in 1830. However, finding the father of Robert Hartley has proved to be difficult.

ThruLines Gone Wrong

When I took out my best guess for Robert Hartley’s father, ThruLines or Ancestry added in Moses Wilkinson as the father:

I am quite sure that this does not make sense as Mary Pilling married a Robert Wilkinson after Robert Hartley died. I have that Mary’s second husband Robert Wilkinson had Moses Wilinson and Jane Shaw as his parents.

Adding Robert’s Father Back In

My idea is to add just a father in at this point. Here is Robert Hartley’s burial record:

The best information I have is that Robert was 31 years old when he died in 1835. That means that he could have been born in 1804 or 1803 after August 6th. There were four Robert Hartleys born in Colne Parish in 1803-1804:

All fathers of these Roberts were named James Hartley. That means that I can a great degree of confidence say that Robert’s father was James Hartley. In addition, all these James Hartleys were weavers. I’ll just add in James Hartley as a father to Robert and see what sorts out with the ThruLines.

It may take a while for the ThruLines to recalculate. This is what it looks like now:

Robert Wilkinson was taken out, James Hartley has not been put back in. But because I did not pick a spouse for James Hartley, Jane Shaw is still showing up. I suppose that it would make sense that the Wilkinson family would show up, because I am related to the Wilkinson family – but only because Robert Wilkinson married my ancestor Mary Pilling.

It has now been a few days since I added in James Hartley and now have this:

James has been added but no descendants are connected. Also, ThruLines seems to preferentially chosen Jane Shaw as a potential ancestor.

My Father’s Cousin’s ThruLines

My second cousin has tested her father who is my father’s first cousin. She has a different tree than I have and has these ThruLines:

She has chosen James Hartley and Betty Baldwin as parents of Robert Hartley. It is possible that James and Mary of Bough Gap may be a better choice. Here is a map of Bough Gap and Bough Gap Mill from about 1844:

Also, from a previous Blog, I believe that Robert Hartley’s first wife was Barbara or Barbary Heaton who died in Well Head. I believe that Well Head was in Winewall.

Robert Hartley and Mary

This next step is to find a Robert Hartley who married a Mary:

Here, I have another 4 choices. Unfortunately, a location is not given for these couples other than the Chapelry of Colne. Assuming the couple married in Colne, Mary would have been 24, 30, 32 or 44 when giving birth to Robert.

Here are some children born to James and Mary Hartley:

More were born in Gilbert Clough, but I do not know where this is.

Gilford/Gilbert/Guildford Clough

There appears to be a great amount of confusion as to the spelling of this place. Here is part of a helpful detailed walking tour description from Wycoller to Trawden:

After taking in my fill of comprehensive views from Lad Law I began my descent by following a good path on Bedding Hill Moor towards the Trawden Valley. I was drawn to look at Upper Coldwell Reservoir and Lower Coldwell Reservoir below to my left. Further west I could see the east of Burnley but these views disappeared as I descended further off the moor and were gone completely by the time I reached the first discoveries of Trawden Brook at Gilford Clough. The moor was now behind me as I followed upland pasture in the direction of Hollin Hall and the village of Trawden. Near Alder Hurst End the field path ended and I followed a lane past some lovely rows of cottages to the village.

Here is a map I found that appears to match that description:

This location looks promising. The question is, did James and Mary live in Bough Gap, have Robert and then move to Guildford Clough and have more children? Also notice the mention of Alder Hurst in the walking narrative. I believe that the Pilling family lived there.

1841 Census

There are a James and Mary in the 1841 Census in Winewall:

It is not clear if this is the same James that gave birth to Robert. It is definitely not the same Mary as she is born about 1801. She is possibly a second wife.

The oldest resident of Alderhirstend was John Hartley:

Bough Gap has many Hartleys:

Henry Hartley, 45, may have been a relative of Robert Hartley from Bough Gap? His parents appear to be William and Margaret Hartley.

Adding a Mother for Robert Hartley

I added back James Hartley for Robert’s father. Now I will add in Mary Heap. She is a logical choice, and my cousin already have Betty Baldwin (perhaps from my Hartley Web Page). Having two different mothers may be helpful to compare. Another interesting connection is tha there is a Heap living at Alderhist Head:

Adding Mary Heap will be better than having a Wilkinson wife in my ancestry.

Here is what my ThruLines now show:

However, there are no matches for either person. This could be because I have no birth date for either or because they are the wrong ancestors?

My Cousin’s ThruLines

I mentioned above that my second cousin posted her father’s results at Ancestry. But she used James Hartley and Betty Baldwin as Robert Hartley’s parents.

These ThruLines have 35 matches. Robert Hartley is listed twice, but it sort of makes sense as the second Robert Hartley was not the father of John Pilling Mary Pilling had a child before she married Robert Hartley. The ThruLines get more interesting with what my cousin has for James Hartley’s parents:

Even more matches appear on the Bracewell side:

Going back a generation, there are even more matches:

This seems to indicate that this tree is on the right track – either right or close enough to right that there are a lot of DNA matches.

Give Heap a Chance

Before I add birth dates to James Hartley and Mary Heap, I’ll try something else. I took DNA from another of my father’s cousins named Joyce. I’ll look at her Hartley side and then search for DNA matches with Heap in the ancestry. First I filter on Joyce’s maternal side which is her Hartley side. Then I search for:

The top match is Brian, but his Heap connection is too far back and in the wrong part of England:

He also has Shackleton ancestors, so that may be a more likely connection.

The next match is Andrew:

Accrington seems to be about the same distance as my Hartley ancestors from Colne and my Emmet ancestors from Bacup.

The next Brian has a shared match with a potential  Emmet side common ancestor.

Steve’s Heap ancestor was from Chesire, but he also has Shackleton, Hartley adn Howorth in the mix. I am not seeing a lot of good results for Heap so far.

Maria’s 13 cM match Heap is from Burnley. I do notice the Pollard name showing up in some of these trees.

Abigail’s Heap is from Haslingden.

A Baldwin Experiment

What if I try the same experiment with Baldwin? I proposed Betty Baldwin as an ancestor many years ago:

Again, using Joyce’s maternal matches.

Kristen

Kristen is a known match. She has built a different Hartley tree far out:

Kristen has James Hartley and Elizabeth Taylor as the parents of Robert Hartley. Elizabeth would have been about 39 when giving birth to Robert under this scenario. Kristen’s Baldwin is from the 1600’s.

Cathy

Cathy has a Baldwin from New Jersey in the 1700’s. Shared matches show common ancestors on my Snell side with Massachusetts colonial ancestors.

Dennis

Dennis has a Baldwin ancestor from Connecticut in the 1600’s.

Lee

Lee has been on my radar for a while. He has Baldwin ancestors, Hartley ancestors and ancestors from Trawden.

So this experiment was perhaps more hopeful, but not the best either. Perhaps the most interesting aspect was Kristen’s proposed ancestry tree for Hartley.

The Taylor Tree Scenario

If I were to look for Joyce’s maternal matches with Taylor in the ancestral tree, I fear I would get too many matches. Kristen has this for James Hartley:

This is interesting as I had Betty Baldwin and Kristen has Betty Taylor as Robert’s mother.

Kristen does not provide a marriage date for James and Betty Taylor.

This does not appear to work out well as Betty would have been 59 when she gave birth to Robert. By Kristen’s timeline, she would actually have been 58 when Robert was born:

I would rule out Betty Taylor based on her age. It is interesting, however, that Kristen chose a Betty as the wife of James Hartley. Now that I think of it, Mary Heap would have been quite old had she been the mother of Robert Hartley

Better Choices for Mary

  1. Mary Holmes – perhaps in her mid 40’s giving birth to Robert
  2. Mary Stansfield – this James was a weaver which is probably a plus
  3. Mary Berry – from Kildwick
  4. Mary Robinson – this James is also a weaver. A witness of John Shackleton is interesting.

Here is Kildwick:

At this point, I would like to end the Blog and pick it up in a subsequent Blog. An initial look at my father’s cousin Joyce’s Kilwick matches shows that there are quite a few matches from this area.

Summary and Conclusions

  • When I took away my best guess for Robert Hartley’s parents, ThruLines gave me parents that I knew were wrong.
  • I made a guess that Robert’s parents could have been James and Mary
  • Unfortunately, the Mary I chose was married too early, so I ruled out Mary Heap
  • I then started to look at other Marys that married James Hartley in the right time period to have a Robert Hartley born 1803-1804.
  • As this could take a while, I will start a new Blog.

 

 

 

A Recap of Butler Genealogy

For years, I have been tracking my wife’s Butler genealogy with the help of DNA testing. As some of her relatives have pointed out, some of that genealogy was in the wrong direction. I was looking in Poulrone, County Kilkenny, Ireland at an Edward Butler, but now I see that was the wrong Butler.

The Butler Story

Here is what I have:

Henry marries Anne in 1824 in Wexford:

George, the Oldest Son, Born 1826 in Wexford

I know most about the oldest and youngest sons of Henry Butler. George Butler was born in 1826 in Wexford, 13 years before Edward Butler, my wife’s immigrant ancestor.

The name is odd, in that the first choice is Adam Butler, but then in small letters, “or George”. Edward was also Edward Adam Butler but the Adam name did not prove to be popular perhaps as I do not see it used again. Here is a map of Wexford, showing also Kilkenny and Waterford:

George marries Mary Whitty in 1848 at Rathangan:

I think this is Rathangan:

This appears to be Mountaingate Townland:

Perhaps George was listed in Griffith’s Valuation. Here is a possibility:

This is not close to Mountaingate:

Here are some choices for Henry Butler in Griffith’s Valuation:

Seven choices are in Wexford. It is not likely that Henry would have been listed in the Tithe Applotments as these were for people that had owned or leased land. At the time of the Tithe Applotments, Henry appears to be living in the City of Wexford.

 

George and Mary give birth to a daughter Anne in Wexford in 1850:

What Happened to Anne Butler?

Anne is in the 1860 Census for Cincinnatti:

This shows that George Butler and family moved to Cincinnati probably in the mid-1850’s. Anne shows as 11 in the 1860 Census, though technically, she should have been 10 at the time. However, Anne was missing from the 1870 Cincinnati Census:

Henry’s first wife had passed away and Henry remarried Margaret Sinnott.

Ancestry suggests this record for Anne Butler:

Mary Ann Butler is listed as a witness. However, she would have beeb about 17 at the time of the marriage if we have the right people. I cannot make out the other witness which may be William Butler? Also as Mindall is an unusual name, the spelling could be wrong.

This appears to be St. Louis Parish:

Here is another possibility:

This may be the same Anne or Anna in 1870 in Cincinnati. Anne is also listed in the 1870 Cincinnati Directory:

Mary Ann Butler Born

Mary Ann marries Thomas Murphy in St. John, New Brunswick in 1878:

The 1901 Census shows that the couple had a large family. Some descendants tested for DNA which confirms the relationship between this family and my wife’s family. Here is my Butler DNA tree:

I see at Ancestry that there are other matches. My wife’s late Aunt Lorraine also matches Bobbi at 41 cM. Here is the maternal side of Bobbi’s tree:

There could also be other matches under Rebecca Butler born 1869. Actually, I was looking at an old Butler DNA Tree. Here is the newer one:

It goes back an extra generation to the likely father George Butler from the 1700’s. On the left side of the Tree, notice that the name Adam comes up twice:

These four people plus the son of Will have DNA matches with my wife’s side of the family. They are fourth cousins once or twice removed to my wife’s aunts and father. This side of the Butler family moved to England.

Recapping George Butler’s Life

George Butler was the eldest son of Henry Butler and named for his grandfather. He was born in Wexford in 1826. Little is known of Henry Butler except that he was probably born in Wexford around 1800. He was likely not a farmer. He had eight known children. I will copy Peter’s genealogy. He is a good Butler genealogist from England:

George marries first Anne Russel. They have a daughter, Anne born in 1850. According to Peter, she dies in 1865:

However,  I mention above that there was an Anne Butler who married a Hugh [Mindall?] in New Brunswick in 1876.

We do know that Mary Ann Butler, born in 1858 in Cincinnati married aThomas Murphy in Saint John, New Brunswick in 1878 and lived there, had children and died there. She died at 196 Watson Street in St. Jon West :

Mary Ann was buried in the Holy Cross Cemetery:

Questions and Observations

  • Edward Butler is in St. John, New Brunswick where he marries Mary Crowley in 1855 at age 16. He has two daughters born there: Julia Ann Butler in 1857 and Ellen about 1859.
  • Soon after the birth of Ellen, the Butler family moves to Cincinnati where brother George and family live.
  • Is it possible that brother George was also in St. John at some point before living in Cincinnati?
  • Julia Ann marries in New Brunswick in 1904 at the age of 47.
  • I have that Ellen dies in 1865, however, I have no reference for that date. If this death date is right, it would have been the same year that Peter has her cousin Ann dying.
  • What I find interesting is the relationship between the two families.
  • How did Edward know that George was in Cincinnati?
  • George’s children would have known about St. John through Mary Crowley Butler if from no one else.
  • The time around the mid 1850’s was a bad time for all Irish people. For the Butler family hard times dispersed the family to England, Canada and the US.

A Short Sketch of George Butler Born 1826, Wexford and Younger Brother Edward

  • 1826 – George Butler is born in Wexford, Ireland. He is baptized as Adam or George Butler. He was named presumably for his father’s brother Adam and his grandfather George.
  • 1839 – Younger brother Edward Adam baptized in Wexford
  • This just in for 1849:

George and Margaret have a child named George in Wexford who is illegitimate. Yet, the father George marries Mary Whitty in 1849 and Margaret Sinnott in Cincinnati after Mary dies in 1868? If that is right, it certainly seems unusual. And what happened to baby George? Was he adopted by Catherine Meany?

He is married in the Rahangan Parish in 1849 to Mary Whitty:

Presumably, Mary Whitty was from the Rathangan Parish or they wanted to marry away from Wexford.

  • 1850 – The family apparently lives in Wexford, as George’s daughter Ann is born there in 1850. Ann either dies in Cincinnati or possibly moves to New Brunswick and marries.
  • 1855 – Edward marries Mary Ellen Crowley in St. John, Nova Scotia
  • Mid 1850’s – George and his small family settle in Cincinnati, Ohio. It appears that both brothers leave Ireland roughly around the same time.
  • 1856 – Edward’s daughter Julia Ann born in St. John
  • 1858 – George’s Daughter Mary Ann is born in Cincinnati
  • 1859 – Edward’s daughter Ellen born in St. John
  • 1859 or 1860 – The Edward Butler family moves to Cincinnati
  • 1860 – Both George and Edward live in Ward 17 of Cincinnati
  • George Butler has a son born in 1862 named Henry, presumably after his father.
  • 1863 – An Edward Butler and George Butler enlist for duty in the Civil War. I assume that both of these are the right people. There is independent reference to Edward being in the Civil War.
  • 1865 – George’s wife Mary Whitty dies
  • 1868 – George marries Margaret Sinnott
  • 1869 – A daughter, Rebecca, is born to George
  • 1870 – George and family live in Ward 17 of Cincinnati while Edward and family are now in Ward 5 of Cincinnati
  • 1872 – Edward has a son born named George Henry. He is said to be born in Chicago, though no original record has been found of the birth.
  • 1875 – Edward has another son born – Edward Henry again said to be born in Chicago in June
  • 1875 – George has a daughter Margaret born in Cincinnati in June
  • 1876 – George has a daugther Elizabeth born in Cincinnati
  • 1877 – George’s daughter Mary Ann marries Thomas J Murphy in St. John
  • 1880 – George and family is listed as living in Cincinnati. His son Henry is listed as being born in Ireland – perhaps a mistake?
  • 1887 – George’s wife Mary Sinnott dies
  • 1890 – George dies in Cincinnati at age 64
  • 1890 – There is a listing for an Edward H Butler, Clerk at 220 California Street in Newton. This is the same place where the funeral was held for Edward Butler.
  • 1890 – There is an Edward H Butler listed on the Verteran schedules in Newton, Massachusetts. He is listed as a mariner on the US Ship Milwaukee and served from 1864 to 1865.
  • 1891 – Edward dies in Boston at age 52 (listed as 51) as a longshoreman. Two addresses are given: Boston City Hospital and 24 Clark Street. The Boston City Hospital was in the South End of Boston and 24 Clark Street was in the North End of Boston – the home of a priest.

Edward’s Civil War Service

I looked up lists for the Milwaukee and did find Edward there on page 70 of this record:

Here is the reference link: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/134431401

Edward is listed as age 29. He was probably more like 25 at the time. He was supposedly tranferred from the Great Western, but I do not see his name listed there. So I assume that entry was incorrect. Butler researcher Peter from England already had this information, so I was a bit behind him.

1890-1891

These two years provide a lot of information for Edward, though the time between 1870 and 1890, a 20 year period appears to be mostly missing.

1890 Veteran Schedule

This is one of the only records I am aware of where Edward goes by Edward H Butler. His rank appears to be mariner or marine? The house number was 255 and family number was 290. The post office address is listed as Newtonville. This comment appears to correlate to Edward H:

Unfortunately I cannot read what it says. However, the entry confirms family lore that Edward served on an iron clad ship during the Civil War.

Where Was Edward Living in 1890?

According to the Veteran’s Schedule, he lived in Newton. Here is an entry from the Newton Directory of 1889:

A Mrs. Mary E Butler was living at 473 Auburn Street. She may have been a widow or the husband of Edward Butler.

Here is the Newton DIretctory for 220 California Street where Edward’s funeral was held:

The problem is whether the Edward H, machinist was the son or the father. My guess is that these were the two brothers, but I am not sure as the son Edward would have been only 15 or 16. I am not aware that the father was ever listed as a machinist. The son Edward is listed as a machinist living on Crescent Stree in Newton in 1900:

Assuming my wife’s ancestor was not an assistant priest, there is only one other Edward H. in Newton in the 1889 Directory.

1887 Directory for Newton

Here is Mary E Butler:

That eliminates Mary Crowley.

There were fewer Butlers in the 1887 Newton Directory:

1891 Newton Directory

George Butler is no longer at 220 California Street, but there is an Edward H Butler, now listed as a clerk. This could still be the elder Edward as he died in December 1891 and would be listed in that year.

1893 Newton Directory

Edward H is still listed as a clerk.

I see also a George Butler listed.

1890 Boston Directory

There is an Edward Butler who was a mariner in the 1890 Boston Directory:

A quick search for Erin Alley does not show anything.

1891

While the 1890 Census shows that Edward was in Newton and near Newtonville, I cannot find other proof from street directories that he was livign there. Perhaps he moved around a bit or was in poor health. Or he lived there less than a year and was not caught in the City and Town listings.

Edward died on December 16th 1891. I take it that he died at City Hospital but that he was livign at 24 Clark Street at the time in Boston.

The funeral notice corrects the age at death:

This appears to pull things together. The elder Edward was living at 24 Clark Street, Boston. The son, Edward was living at 220 California Street in Newton from the way I interpret this information. The fact that the funeral notice mentions St. John, New Brunswick indicates to me that Edward may have had connections to that City more recently than when he married there in 1855.

Some Questions Remain

  • There appear to be no records for Edward Butler between 1870 and 1870 – a period of 20 years.
  • Where did Mary Crowley Butler live between 1891 and 1905 when she died? We do know that she was living with her son George in Watertown at the time of her death.
  • Why was Edward living at 24 Clark Street at the time of his death. This was the home of a priest from what I understand.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The Edward Butler livign at 220 California Street was likely Edward the son
  • The 1890 Veteran Census confirms the Navy record of Edward Butler enlisting on the USS Milwaukee during the Civil War.
  • Many questions are raised as to the whereabouts of Edward Butler between 1870 and 1890.

 

My Wife’s mtDNA

I was interested in finding out my wife’s mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA, so I tried to get results from her late mother’s test. The sample was apparently no longer good. I then tried to get results from my wife’s old test. This sample was also inadequate, so she took a new test.

My Wife’s Maternal Lineage

This is what I have for my wife’s maternal line:

It goes from Ellis to Daley to Rhynold to Sandwich. However, there is some ambiguity as the suggested father for Mary Sandwich is a Daly and the mother is a Snyder. Here is the 1891 Census for Crow Harbour, Guysborough, Nova Scotia:

This shows that Mary was born in Nova Scotia. It also has her father born in Ireland and mother born in Nova Scotia. The 1871 Census for the same place gives Mary’s origins as Irish, but that does not necessarily mean that she was born there:

I do see this record:

However, I assume that this George is the son of George Rhynold. The younger George was 22 in the 1891 Census. However, according to this genealogy at genealogy.com, the elder George did remarry:

The key here would be to find the records for St. Joseph’s Church, Port Felix.

Perhaps this is a hint:

This birth record indicates that the parents George Rainold, fisherman and Mary Sandwich were married in 1858 at White Haven:

Here is a different transcription of the same event:

However, I do not see the Landrich. The r in Landrich is clearly a w. That leaves the name as Landwich or Sandwich of which Sandwich is more probable. That seems to be the best I can do with the information I can find now.

The mtDNA

The results appear to be still coming in:

Let’s see if this is in SNP Tracker:

According to SNP Tracker, the connection is very old, going back to the Iron age and apparently ending up in the British Isles.

I wonder how this compares to my own mtDNA:

This did not work, perhaps it is too new, I had to choose my old designation of H5’36:

This is really old by comparison. This is quite a discrepancy from what FTDNA shows on their Time Tree:

This puts me clearly in the Roman Period.

Back to Marie:

Marie has one exact match and several two step matches. Perhaps a new SNP will form based on Marie’s one match.

When I choose the Discover Haplogroup Reports at FTDNA, I get this message:

I will write another Blog when these results are available.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was curioius as to what was going on with my wife’s mtDNA results. I had to change her password to check
  • Marie is in the U category. H is most prevalent in the British Isles from what I understand which is what I have. However, U appears to be located in the British Isles at a very early date if I am interpreting SNP Tracker correctly.
  • Marie has one exact match for her mtDNA. I wonder if that match will form a new group.
  • I am also interested in seeing the Discover Reports when they are available.

 

Did ThruLines Find My Hartley Ancestors?

To answer my own question, I believe the answer is no.

A Trimmed Down Hartley Tree

From going through many records, my best guest as to who my ancestors were is on my web page:

With all the Hartleys around it was difficult to establish which was which in the records. The compound matters, my ancestor Robert was a weaver. This makes him somewhat mobile. If he was a farmer, he would have been likely tied to a family farm.

My theory was, that if I took away James Hartley and Betty Baldwin, ThruLines might suggest the correct Hartley ancestor.

My ThruLines Gone Wrong?

Unfortunately, when I used this approach, ThruLines suggested a Wilkinson ancestor.

This would be a good set of ThruLines, but for the fact that it shows my ancestor Robert Hartley to be the son of Moses Wilkinson. I can at least try to give an explanation as to why this happened.

The Pilling/Wilkinson Connection

I do know that Robert Hartley married Mary Pilling who was a single mother. Robert dies young and the widow Mary marries Robert Wilkinson who is a widower. This is perhaps the connection that ThruLines is making, but it is unclear how the widow of Robert Hartley marrying a Wilkinson would connect a dead Robert Hartley to the Wilkinson family. Here is the marriage record for Robert Hartley and Mary Pilling:

The witnesses were John Schofield and John Aldersley. Interestingly, this is likely John Aldersley in the 1841 Census in Holling Hallrow, Trawden:

John was a neighbor to my ancestor Greeonwood hartley at the time. The previous page of the Census shows that Mary Pilling had remarried Robert Wilkinson by this time:

I assume that the young Aldersley was the one who was listed at both of Robert Hartleys weddings. This is probably John’s birth record in 1803:

He was born in Wanless. Here is Wanless on an 1818 map:

 

Here is the marriage record for Mary Pilling and Robert Wilkinson from 1839:

Notice that between 1830 and 1839, a lot more information was included on the marriage record.

Robert Hartley’s First Marriage

When Robert Hartley married Mary Pilling, he was listed as a widower. So, who did he marry first?

I can’t prove it, but there was a Robert Hartley, weaver who married a Barbary or Barbara Heaton. Notice that John Aldersley was a witness to the marriage. There was a Barbara Heaton born in Wycoller in 1802:

Tragically, there was a Barbary Hartley [note the spelling, same as the wedding record] who died in 1829.

Note that in 1829, Barbary and presumably Robert Hartley lived at Wellhead. Barbary is listed as dying at age 27 which also fits very well with the other facts.

Where is Wellhead?

Assuming I have thre right couple, it would be interesting to know where they were living in 1829. A Google search results in this map and arrow:

However, I do not see the words Well head. The location would make sense as it is not far from Hollin Hall where Robert died, not far from Wanless where John Aldersley lived and not far from Wycoller where Barbara was born. A closer view reveals that there is a Wellhead Road which suggests that there was a Wellhead in the area near Winewall:

Who Were Moses Wilkinson and Jane Shaw?

I have them in my tree as the parents of Robert Wilkinson who was Mary Pilling’s second husband. I am confused as to why Ancestry would somehow combine Robert Hartley and Robert Wilkinson just because they both married Mary Pilling. Here is what I have for Robert Wilkinson:

Could the confusion be due to the fact that I have no first wife for Robert Wilkinson? This should be easy to find (I think). This record suggests that the first was was Sarah Cowgill:

Here is a possible marriage:

However, if this is right, Robert would have been only 19 years old at his marriage. I searched for children of Robert Wilkinson and Sarah and found one entry:

Possibly this John died and another child was named John? Or this could be the same John. I would be willing to add Sarah Cowgill as the first wife of Robert to see if this improves my ThruLines.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I took out my best guess for the parents of Robert Hartley to see if ThruLines could come up with a good candidate
  • Instead ThruLines gave the parents of Mary Pilling’s second huband Robert Wilkinson to my ancestor Robert Hartley
  • I added a first wife to Robert Wilkinson to see if this fixes ThruLines
  • The next step is to add in at least a Hartley father (likely a James) to Robert Hartley to correct ThruLines.

 

My New Nicholson 4th Cousin ThruLine

ThruLines are at Ancestry. They look at DNA matches that also have potential common ancestors in the two lines. I have not been getting many new ThruLines lately, so I will look at my newest possible connection with Sarah:

Sarah shows as a 4th cousin once removed. Apparently, I have her great-grandmother Clara Nicholson in my tree already.

Here are Nellie, Clara and Clara’s father Walter in 1921 in Sheffield:

Nellie would be my mother’s third cousin. Here is Clara’s marriage record:

Here are Nellie’s baptism and birth information:

It appears that all is in order and that Ancestry has the right connection.

Sarah’s DNA

Sarah and I must match by more than the usual DNA for fourth cousins once removed. My late mom matches by even more DNA:

My Nicholson DNA Tree

I have quite a few Nicholsons on the tree already. I’m ready to add Sarah. Here is part of my existing tree:

It will be good to add some branching to this line. Here is what my ThruLines look like:

This does not match well with my current Nicholson DNA Tree:

I have Louie and not Nancy. I wrote a Blog about Nancy and Louie here. In that Blog, I wrote that it would be interesting to see if Louie and Nancy match each other by DNA. It turns out that Louie is a match to my sister Heidi. Here is the match between Saray and Nancy on my sister Heidi’s shared match list:

Sarah and Nancy match by a large amount of DNA (190 cM). That makes me think that Nancy should be on my Nicholson DNA tree.

Louie also has a good match to Sarah.

Here, I’ve added in Sarah to my Nicholson DNA Tree:

More Nicholson Lines to Add?

Here are two more matches on my sister Heidi’s ThruLines:

They are Angela, Andrew and Nancy. For some reason, it appears that I do not have Joseph born 1872 in my Nicholson Tree. I already have a tree for Nancy:

This tree has Joseph’s father as Henry Nicholson, not Walter Nicholson. However, the DNA shows that Nancy should be connected to Sarah. Let’s take a closer look. I assumed that the Ellen in the 1911 Census was Mary Ellen Nicholson born about 1904:

As Henry was the first born son, it would make sense that Joseph’s father would be Henry also. This is the 1881 Census:

However, the 1891 Census shows this:

Here there is a Joseph who is a Carter like the Joseph in 1911. The mother’s name is that same as the 1881 Census, but the father is now George Nicholson. This brings up varioius possibilities:

  1. There were two different familities
  2. Henry Nicholson died and Mary A married George Nicholson
  3. Henry Nicholson also went by the name of George Nicholson
  4. The Census taker got the information wrong.
  5. Joseph may have been living with George Nicholson and Mary A in 1891, but not be their son.

So, for now, I will leave out the Joseph Nicholson Branch out of my Nicholson DNA Tree, even though there are DNA matches.

Summary and Conclusions

  • My sister Heidi and I (and perhaps others) had a match with Sarah. Ancestry shows that Heidi and Sarah have the common ancestors of Nicholson and Clayton
  • I added Sarah to my Nicholson DNA Tree
  • Ancestry also shows that Heidi has matches to three other people who potentially descend from Nicholson and Clayton
  • I was unable to match these DNA matches up genealogically, so I left them off my Nicholson DNA Tree for now. It is possible that there is a Nicholson connection but further back in time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A New mtDNA Haplogroup Confirmed

auaI had an email today from FTDNA notifying me that I have a new maternal mtDNA Haplogroup. This was welcome news, and ahead of what I was expecting.

I was H5’36 and now have the unwieldy Haplgroup of H5’388’449’450+4092. I am interested in the Match Tree:

There are now Haplogroups on either side of me which explains all the apostrophes in my Haplogroup. I believe the apostrophe is meant to account for an earlier Haplogroup being found after a later branch has been found. So previously, there was a very large Haplogroup called H5. When my Haplogroup was found upstream of H5, they named it H5’36 so H5 through H36 would not have to be renamed. Now above me (though apparently parallel to me – not upstream) are H450 and H388. The confusing part is that I do not see H449 in this screen shot.

More on the Match Time Tree

These are the people in my group. Notice that there are six lines. Two of those lines have a group. They are F2467090 and F8638614. I am in the first group with my first cousin Russel and Elisabeth. When I hover over the groupings, I get this message:

I think the purpose of the note is that, due to hte fast mutating markers, there can be a lot of variability in the results. This would include, I assume, back mutations. I note that these matches may not be necessarily closer, but then again, they may be. Certainly my first cousin is a closer match. I am not sure of Elisabeth. I should try to contact her. She gives her maternal line as coming from Austria, but has no information other than that on her genealogy. Austria seems to be an outlier as the most popular ancestors countries are Ireland and England. It would make sense for me to at least reach out to Elisabeth. I just wrote, but my match with her goes back to 2018, so a lot could have changed since then.

Here is a view of the Time Tree, but I do not see another H449 anwhere:

This is a good graphic showing how far my new Haplogroup moved in time from what it was previously (before 4,000 BCE).

mtDNA and YFull

In my previous Blogs, I looked at a new group I was in at Yfull along with Steve. Steve is four up from the bottom on the Match Time Tree:

Steve and I are at the end of a very long tree at YFull:

YFull has fewer tests than FTDNA. At YFull, Steve and I are simply H5’36e rather than H5’388’449’450’+4092 that FTDNA has. However, I believe that these two haplogroups are intended to represent the same thing. That holds true with the TMRCA of 1850 ybp at YFull compared with the 100 CE of FTDNA:

I would like to point out that even though the TMRCA or time to most recent common ancestor is 1850 years, obviously it is much less for my cousin and me. Our common ancestor was our maternal grandmother who was born in the hear 1900.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I am glad that FTDNA decided to update thier mtDNA tree.
  • This brought my branch of the tree over 4,000 years closer in time to the present.
  • My particular Haplogroup is confusingly named and seems overly complicated
  • I think that the new haplotrype clusters are interesting. I am in one with my first cousin and another person who has maternal ancestry from Austria. I have contacted her to see if can find out anything more about her ancestry. Austria is a long way from Sheffield, England.
  • My new haplogroup has an differently named but equivalent haplogroup at YFull.

 

 

Another Look at My mtDNA

I have written two Blogs recently on my mtDNA. Currently my official Haplogroup at FTDNA is H5’36, but that will be changing. At YFull, my Haplogroup is H5’36e:

If I interpret YFull correctly, the SNP that defines H5’36e is G4092A. However, this screen shows that H5’36e has an additional SNP:

From this, I take it that C456T defines H5’36.

A Cool Screen at YFull

I like this one:

This is called MTree matches on the MReport. The interesting thing is that it appears to trace my line and my mother’s line back all the way to genetic Eve. Here is a closer view:

I don’t know what the different colors mean. There are green, red and grey SNPs.

Here is what SNP Tracker shows:

Here is some more information from SNP Tracker:

This shows the ancient 9,760 years before present for the most recent common ancestor for H5’36. According to YFull, this was reduced to 1850 years before present for H5’36e. It is also amazing how few mutations it takes to get from 155,000 years ago to 9,760 years ago. It looks like there were about 62 mutations. That appears to be about one mutation about every 2,000 years. That would make mtDNA not very useful for genealogical purposes. Also that would make the TMRCA date of 1850 years ago make sense.

What’s Next?

I expect that there will be branching under the present H5’36 which I thought would be H5’248, but now I see it is not:

Apparently H5’36 was replaced with H5’248 which now has been replaced by H5’388’449’450. I guess there is a lot going on in this part of the mtDNA world. I’m watching you FTDNA. The good news is that this shows progress in my part of the mtDNA tree. This seems like an awkward designation. Let’s see what is upstream of H5’388’449’450.

This goes right back to plain H.

This shows 4 named and 11 unnamed lineages from H5’388’449’450 if I am reading it correctly. I know that I am not H5, so that means that I must be H388’449, H450 or H5’388’449’450+4092. From a previous Blog, I see this from the FTDN site:

My take from this screen is that 4092 is an unnamed SNP as just a position is given. [However, see below.]

T310TC!! and G4092A

When I search for G4092A at mitomap.org, I see this:

Apparently, this is at location 4092 which is one of the lineages mentioned at FTDNA: H5’388’449’450+4092. That could mean that I am in the branch with the long name.

Here is something I note from FTDNA:

I assume that !! indicates a double back mutation. I could see where this could be problematic – especially as it occurs at the end of the line. What I would be interested in knowing is whether these two SNPs go together or if they might represent two separate branches on the mtDNA tree.

H5’388’449’450+4092

I am going to go out on a limb and assume that this is my new Haplogroup:

This shows the Imperial Age (100 CE) which seems consitent with YFull. Also, it looks like Ireland has the most chance of where the ancestors came from on the face of it.

I know that my female ancestor line goes back to England. Could that be my English flag? I do not know what F8638614 is – perhaps an initial grouping?

I see no British flag under H388’449:

However, I do see additional branching.

Here is H450:

Again, no UK. This tends to confirm that I belong in H5’388’449’450+4092.

Summary and Conclusions

  • My intention in writing this third Blog on mtDNA was to tie up any loose ends I may have missed before FTDNA comes out with the new H branch of mtDNA
  • While doing this I came upon an update of FTDNA’s MitoTree which gave me the new name of my current branch and gave a hint as to what my new Branch name would be
  • Further snooping around shows that I would likely be in the long-named H5’388’449’450+4092
  • Along the way, I learned quite a bit about mtDNA. I had heard recently about back mutations in mtDNA, but looking at my own makes it more real. 
  • I appreciate FTDNA updating their mtDNA tree and am looking forward to further updates.

More on Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)

In my previous Blog, I started to look at what FTDNA was doing with their new MitoTree and how that was changing my haplogroup. I had to trick out the query as my old Haplogroup of H5’36 is going away. I had to query H5 which was a popular haplogroup under H5’36. When I did that, I found our that the new Haplogroup above H5 will be called H5’248. Even though, my last Blog had Mitotree in the title, I never looked at the actual tree:

Here I shrunk down the H5’248 Time Tree to get it all in. Here is a larger view of the top of the tree:

There should be more branching under H5’248 once the FTDNA analysis is done (I hope). The above images are meant to show that the branching under H5’248 is small except for H5 which is large. I suppose that means that at some time in my maternal history before 4,000 BCE there were two sisters. One sister had a lot of descendants (including the H5 Haplogroup) and the other (my maternal ancestor) not so much. I suppose that problems in my maternal line could have been due to famine, plagues or wars.

If I go upstream one step, I see this:

I see someone from Hungary and someone with an unknown ancestry under H5’248^. From my last Blog, I learned this:

The ancient connections screen shows this:

Talk about a distant relative.

More from YFull

At some point, I uploaded my mtDNA results to YFull. YFull gives analysis of DNA that is independent of FTDNA.

Thanks to someone else who uploaded to YFull, I am in a new Haplogroup there called H5’36e. I am not sure how to read this screen. It gives a TMRCA of 1850. I assume that means 1850 years ago. If I understand this correctly, our common ancestor was in the year 150 approximately. Very interesting. At least this is much more recent than 4750 BCE. This screen confirms what I had thought:

I will next look at the first tab which is Known SNPs:

Again, not a lot of explanation here, but my assumption is that I share with one other tester two SNP:

  • T310TC!!
  • G4092A

Here is another rerport from YFull:

Again, I am flying in the dark a bit here. On the bottom line, this shows C456T after H5’36. Is that what gets me to H5’36e? But this seems to show that there is a match below H5’35e which are the two SNPs I mentioned above. Would these two SNPs form a new mtDNA Haplogroup under H5’35e? Another interpretation is that the two SNPs at the end of the last line are unmatched SNPs waiting to be matched with someone else. According to YFull:

On the “MTree matches” tab, all mutations are divided into groups. In particular, they include those that match other samples and those currently unique.

This does not help my understanding. Two screens ago, it appeared that the last two SNPs were part of H5’36e, so I will have to go with that.

YFull’s MTree

I touched on this in my previous Blog. Interestingly, I see this YFull view from a 2023 Blog tht I wrote:

At that time, the common ancestor was over 13,000 years ago. I also note that in 2023, I had the only id with a YF designation. I am not sure what thee other lettered prefixes mean. Compare that with my new Haplogroup:

I am at the bottom of a very long list. A green subclade or haplogroup with red around it means that it is new. This view seems to indicate that G4092A is the defining SNP for H5’36e, so I remain confused. Also the SNP is very old at over 12,000 years, but my common ancestor with this match is 1850 years before present or about 150 AD. So the new YF match has made a big difference in the TMRCA date.

I see a link at the bottom of the MTree:

This suggests that Ian is involved with the MTree and that they got some of their data for the tree from 23andMe. When I look at that 23andMe link, I see 7 samples listed as H5’36. I also see this:

I have since contacted my new match at YFull and he was not aware that YFull dealt with anything other than YDNA. So I am not sure how his information got on mtDNA got to YFull. Perhaps through 23andMe or another source.

My Match Steve

The person I wrote to who is in YFull is named Steve, from Canada.  He mentioned that he had no known ancestors from Sheffield where my mother’s mother’s mother’s family came from. However, if our common maternal ancestor is 1,000 or more years old, then it would not be likely that the common location would be Sheffield, England.

Here is a map with my matches at FTDNA:

I see I have a red flag near me which means and exact match. When I click on that flag:

 

Hey, it’s Steve, so I guess he did test his mtDNA at FTDNA. That is good news, because that means that hopefully we will also be in a new Haplogroup at FTDNA when they roll out the H line of mtDNA. Apparently, that is such a large line that they will do that after they finish the rest of the branches. I am hoping that in a month or so, we will see more results at FTDNA.

Summary and Conclusions

  • It is interesting to compare what is happening at FTDNA in the area of mtDNA compared to what YFull is doing
  • A match I had at YFull gave us a new Haplogroup there and a much more recent common ancestor.
  • It turns out that Steve who is my new YFull match also tested at FTDNA and his stated ancestor is closest to me geographically. Leeds and Sheffield are relatively close to each other on the map.
  • Based on the matches on the map, it would appear that my maternal line back in the British Isles going back to about the year 150 AD or earlier. There may be some testing bias in this if only people from that area tested. However, it still seems possible that this is true.

A New FTDNA Mitotree

I was notified recently via the Facebook Page, Mitochondrial DNA for Genealogy that something big was happening. The big thing is that FTDNA has a new Beta Mitotree for Mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA. MtDNA is the DNA that women receive from their mother’s mother’s mother’s line and so on. This is passed down to daughters but also to one generation of sons.

My mtDNA: H5’36

I took the mtDNA Full Sequence test in 2014 so over 10 years ago. I am currently H5’36, but apparently all tht could change with the new Mitotree. Roberta Estes was involved with the new tree and wrote a good Blog on the Mitotree here. When I put my current Haplogroup into the FTDNA search, I get this message:

My guess is that either H5’36 is being shuffled around and/or being renamed in update or that the search is having trouble with the ‘ charachter. Instead, I will type in plain old H5:

Now I should point out that I am not H5, but H5’36. H5’36 predates H5 but was added in later as it was discovered after H5. The H5 story continues:

This screen shot is interesting as it shows H5’248 as the precursor to H5. I assume that H5’248 may be my new Haplogroup – or an equivalent to what I have now. It is interesting that these two Haplogroups have the same date of 4750 BCE – really old. The following timeline does not add much information, but just displays it in a different way:

Am I Now H5’248?

This is my assumption, but it is unclear why the change from H5’36 to H5’248 was necessary unless there is now a new naming protocol. All this seems to be laying the groundwork for new branches under H5’248. The next logical step is to do a search fo H5’248.

Again H5 is the popular descendant of H5’248 which I am not part of.

Here is another new Haplogroup called H5’248^. I guess there was a lot going on around 4800 BCE with my mom’s side mitochondrial DNA. Of interest above, is that H5’248 is the parent to H5, H248 and one yet unnamed lineage. As I am not H5, that means that I am likely H5’248, H248 or an unnamed lineage.

Here is another view:

I like this view because it shows over 1,000 H5 testers which I am not part of below me.

However, I would think that there would be more branching under H5’248. From a Blog I wrote 2 years ago, I had this possible tree:

This tree was based on information at YFull.

YFull’s MTree

Apparently, the chart I drew 2 years ago is now outdated. I am now H5’36e according to YFull’s MTree:

I am at the very bottom of the MTree for H:

Note that this is a new subclade:

I am wondering how much YFull’s MTree was responsible for FTDNA’s Mitotree. Here is my interpretation of what YFull’s MTree is showing now:

The over 1,000 testers under H5 obviously have many branches that I did not show. H5’36-b and H5’36b have some branching, but the other H5’36 branches have no further branching under them. I am a bit surprised how far behind FTDNA got in it’s Mitotree. I suppose that is why it may take a while for them to get up to speed.

FInally, I note from FTDNA:

Updates are rolling out over the next few weeks, with Haplogroup H coming after the other haplogroups since it is so large.

My Wife’s mtDNA

I tried to test my wife’s later mother’s mtDNA, but the test failed, so I am now trying to test my wife’s which is also an old sample. It turns out that this is an old sample also. I see from FTDNA:

Standard Average Processing Times
  • Family Finder™: 2 to 4 weeks.
  • mtFull Sequence: 6 to 8 weeks.
  • Y-DNA (excluding Big Y): 3 to 6 weeks.
  • Big Y-700: 6 to 10 weeks.

That means that I should be expecting her results in 2-4 weeks. It is also a good time for her to be testing with all these new changes.

Naming mtDNA

I found an article at the FTDNA Help Center called Understanding mtDNA Haplogroups.

This applies to my branch. So what H5’248 means is that it is the common parent of H5 and H248. That also suggests that there are a lot of new branches since H36 (or that a lot of room is being left for new branches?).

I was curious about the caret as I do not remember seeing that before.

This is perhaps more than many want or need to know. However, one of the things I like about FTDNA is that they do not tend to hold back on giving information to people who are curious. There is more on the FTDNA Help page that is interesting and instructive.

I assume that the Interim Haplogroup section is important at this time when FTDNA is looking to totally revamp their mtDNA Tree.

Summary and Conclusions

  • A lot has happened in the world of mtDNA in the last two years – including in my little branch of the Tree
  • I am now playing catch up in mtDNA
  • The bottom line is that it seems like the H part of the tree which is quite large will be updated last
  • I picked a good time to have my mother-in-law’s DNA tested. Although that has failed, my wife’s sample is now being tested. I hope to see the results in a month or less.
  • I had to trick the new Beta MitoTree to figure out where FTDNA seems to be heading with my branch of H5’36. The branch apparently will be renamed and hopefully I will be on a new branch under that.
  • Knowing the naming conventions helps to figure out what is going on with the new FTDNA Beta Mitotree.
  • It is helpful to have YFull as a check to what is going on in the mtDNA world.